Posted on 11/21/2008 7:10:57 AM PST by knowseverything
Us: But Uncle, we’re already in a hole so deep we can’t climb out!
Uncle: Just shut up and keep diggin.
If it's more effective (e.g. economically)- sure.
Plugging in the energy from wind farms into the existing power grid has the potential of forcing the BPA to look at curtailing hydroelectric power production which could seriously impact the survival of the salmon...twice now the BPA has had to issue cutback orders to wind farms because of too much power and with the Arlington Wind Farm due to be online next year the problem will get worse. I know it’s kinda trivial info, but, it’s all I had.
The only real “solution” to this problem is constructing batteries to store the extremely expensive, subsidized, unnecessary wind power. However these batteries are even more costly than the windmills that make them necessary. This is just another typical example of the gov’t creating problems that were worse than the original problem they were intended to solve, aka, The Law of Unintended Consequences, at work!
As a Mechanical Engineer who has 15 years of his 20 year career to date in Power Generation (coal and nuclear), I applaud your article.
Too many people are convinced "Green", "Sustainable", and "Renewable Energy" are silver bullet fixes that have been slighted for no good reason.
The fact is, these "solutions" would have been embraced to the fullest if they were economical and reliable. Does anyone really believe that a utility company would NOT build wind and solar power installation if they could make reliable power for cheaper and with less maintenance than coal or nuclear stations? Anyone who believes this has never worked in a coal or nuclear station. The amount of money and effort required to keep them running economically and reliably is staggering. If a windmill could do it better, they would build them and mothball the central generating facilities. The fact is, a windmill cannot do it and this is why things are the way they are.
If it is calculated using the subsidies and tax benefits, it doesn't need to return anything in operations.
It is the tax shelters that people want.
In my Northern Tool catalog they have a 1600 running Watt generator which uses 1 gallon of gas for 3 hours of runtime or 4.8 kWh per gallon. A bigger generator uses 6 gallons of gas for 8 hours at half load (3000 Watts) or 4 kWh per gallon. A big 15kW gasoline generator uses 10 gallons to produce 6.75kW for 8 hours or 5.4 kWH per gallon.
I think the scaling would continue pretty well and especially well if you could figure out a way to distribute the power use evenly through the day in a small community. In the more limited situations of home use, you should be able to to turn down or even turn off the generator for extended periods. Even with those measures, the electricity will be quite expensive, 37 cents a kWh for the big generator with gas at $2/gallon.
Excellent. I think you are being generous about the cost of wind...but I understand where you are going.
You should write about solar and the cost of that nonsense. I think at best it can run at 15% capacity in most places.
Uhhh...what’s a reasonable level? We know that the current level is not the optimum level for plant growth. To do this we would need to nearly triple the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is no evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. None.
What about optimal for the man to feel the best?
Why?
Why not a plant and marine life to feel the best?
Since this is the primary motivation for all man's activites, including scientifical, social or business. No reason for CO2 ratio to be treated differently.
Because that's people's talk and business :) Let them feel good enough to be that numerous to keep us satisfied with our environment.
What about O2(a by-product of electrolysis when producing hydrogen for fuel)? Do you consider that to be pollution too?
Pollution emerges when something is left outside a closed ecological cycle. O2 is released at the electrolysis process, but it's consumed in a H2 burning process. So we have a cycle: 2H20 (electrolysis)-->2H2+O2-->2H2O (burning). If we have an alike cycle producing energy for the electrolysis, we have an unchanging (non being polluted environment). If we look at the conventional combustion engine, the same cycle can be maintained if we can convert the CO2 and H20 produced at combustion into oil (or petrol).
Continuation: so the O2 from electrolysis isn’t a polluting agent. CO2 from our caloric engines is a different issue, since it’s not balanced with th O2 generation done by the plants.
A friend just left and we were talking about this subject. He suggested a diesel generator. He said an 8 or 10KW would run the whole house but....watch what you are using. Running the washing machine, micro wave and stove could be the only problems. You can also store more diesel than gas.....legally. At least in California.
My stove is propane and microwave is just 500W or so. My biggest problem would be my electric water heater. I think the best option would be instant-on propane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.